4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bucharest.
5.  On 23 July 1996 the applicant filed an administrative claim with the Bacău Local commission for the application of Law no. 112/1995 (“the local commission”) seeking to obtain restitution in kind of real estate (a building and its appurtenant land) located in Bacău at no. 6 Cuza-Vodă Street, in the limit of a one-third share of property.
6.  By a decision of 20 February 1997 the local commission rejected the applicant’s claim on the ground that the property in question had been unlawfully nationalised by the State. Consequently, the procedure laid down in Law no. 112/1995 did not find its applicability, since it concerned only real estate that had undergone lawful nationalisation.
7.  On 20 May 1998 the applicant brought court proceedings against the Bacău Inspectorate for Culture seeking to recover possession of the claimed share of real property.
8.  By a final judgment of 24 January 2001 the Court of Appeal of Bacău rejected the action on the ground that the property had been nationalised based on the provision of the Decree-Law no. 119/1948, fact which had rendered it lawful.
9.  On 21 May 2001 the applicant filed a new administrative claim (“notificare”) pursuant to a new restitution law, that is, Law no. 10/2001, with the Bacău Inspectorate for Culture, seeking the same property rights as in 1996.
10.  On 22 June 2001 the Bacău Department for Culture, Cults and Cultural Heritage (the new title of the Bacău Inspectorate for Culture, “the Department for Culture” thereon) issued a negative answer, drawn up in general terms. Consequently, the applicant brought a court action on 18 June 2002 seeking to obtain a court order to force the Department of Culture to issue a proper official answer to her claim.
11.  On 14 January 2004 the County Court of Bacău allowed the action and ruled that the concerned authority was under the obligation to issue a “decision” which should, according to Article 23 of Law no. 10/2001, indicate the possibility of restitution in kind, and propose measures of compensation by equivalent where such restitution was not possible. The court stated that the answer issued in June 2001 failed to satisfy legal requirements. The judgment became final on 11 November 2005 before the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
12.  On 29 April 2004 the Department for Culture complied with the court order and issued a decision whereby it rejected the restitution claim. It held that restitution in kind was not possible and that the applicant was entitled to compensation according to restitution laws.
13.  On 19 May 2004, the decision was contested in court.
14.  Separately, two of the applicant’s uncles (the three of them claimed ownership rights in common for the same real estate) brought civil proceedings seeking restitution in kind of the same property, in the limit of a two-third share of property. The restitution claim was allowed by the Court of Appeal of Suceava by its decision of 1 March 2004, which ordered that two thirds of the real property be returned to the claimants as lawful owners. The decision became final on 15 September 2006 before the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
15.  On 8 June 2005 the County Court of Bacău decided to stay the proceedings until the ones brought by the applicant’s uncles had been finalised.
16.  On 11 April 2007 the legal process was resumed on the applicant’s request (filed on 20 February 2007).
17.  On 1 November 2007 the County Court of Bacău gave its judgment. Basing itself mainly on the findings of the 2004 judgment given by the Court of Appeal of Suceava, it ordered that restitution in kind be made to the applicant for one third of the real estate. It also provided for pecuniary compensation for one third of land (326, 93 sq.m.) for which restitution in kind was not possible.
18.  On appeal brought by both parties, the Court of Appeal of Bacău quashed the judgment and remitted it to the first instance court for re-examination on the merits. By its decision of 14 April 2008 the court found that the first judgment failed to comply with the guarantees of a fair trial in respect of the applicant, whose several requests in evidence had not been considered. The court pointed to a land expert study whose findings could have been essential to clear out doubts as to the current land holders. The first-instance court had also failed to indicate the amount as well as the debtor of the compensation to which the applicant was entitled.
19.  The case was registered for re-trial on 19 June 2008 before the County Court of Bacău.
20.  At the hearing of 24 September 2008 the applicant specified her property claims, in that she sought that the land holders be correctly identified and that an expert study be commissioned by the court to that effect, exactly what the higher court had previously indicated in its remittal judgment.
21.  On 21 January 2009 the court ordered for an expert study to be conducted on the real estate in the interest of both parties and established its costs. On 5 March 2009 the applicant partly complied by paying only half of the expert’s fee. She held that the rest was to be paid for the Department for Culture, as the examination served its interests as well. The expert appointed by the court conducted the examination on 18 June 2009, but failed to submit its report to the court.
22.  On 4 November 2009 the court stayed the proceedings based on Article 1551 of the Code for Civil Procedure as the parties refused to pay the expert fee and the report was essential for the court to examine the merits of the case.
23.  On 27 October 2010 subsequent to the payment of the fee by the applicant, the legal process was resumed. At the same hearing, it was postponed as the expert report had yet to be delivered.
24.  On 8 December 2010 the hearings were again deferred so that a new expert examination be conducted in the case by a newly-appointed land expert (the first expert having been suspended). However, the repeated absence of an expert report had led to the postponement of the ensuing nine hearings. The next hearing was scheduled on 16 November 2012 with the court still expecting that the expert report be drafted and submitted to it. The proceedings are thus pending before the first-instance court.